Cover not available
Part of
Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL
Edited by Ana Llinares and Tom Morton
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 47] 2017
► pp. 183–200

Classroom interactional competence in content and language integrated learning

| The Autonomous University of Barcelona
| Newcastle University

This chapter problematizes the Classroom Interactional Competence (CIC) of learners and teachers working in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) contexts. Through Multimodal Conversation Analysis (CA), we consider how CIC is enacted in dialogues which focus on both subject content and English. Our analysis reveals that (a) teachers’ deployment of multimodal resources ensures comprehension and self-selection; (b) teachers’ questions and evaluative feedback may play a major role in guiding the students; (c) the scarcity of teacher elicitations aimed at more elaborated learner responses may limit the development of academic discourse; and (d) groupwork may become a privileged environment for students to deploy and develop L2 interactional resources.

Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Classroom interactional competence
  • CIC in a CLIL classroom: An illustrative study
    • CIC in teacher-class interaction
    • CIC in learner-learner interaction
  • Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 16 March 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.47.11esc
References

References

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C.
(1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: CUP. First published 1978 as part of Ester N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and Politeness.Google Scholar
Canale, M., & Swain, M.
(1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D.
(2010) CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C.
(2007) Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, P., & Heritage, J.
(1992) Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Ed.), Talk at Work (pp. 3–65). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Urmeneta Escobar, C.
(2013) Learning to become a CLIL teacher: Teaching, reflection and professional development. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 334–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Urmeneta Escobar, C., & Evnitskaya, N.
(2013) Affording students opportunities for the integrated learning of content and language. a contrastive study on classroom interactional strategies deployed by two CLIL teachers. In J. Arnau (Ed.), Recovering Catalan through school: Challenges and instructional approaches (pp. 158–182). Bristol: Multilingual Matters & Institut d’Estudis Catalans.Google Scholar
(2014) ‘Do you know Actimel?’ The adaptive nature of dialogic teacher-led discussions in the CLIL science classroom: A case study. Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 165–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firth, A.
(1996) The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’ English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(2), 237–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firth, A., & Wagner, J.
(2007) Second/foreign language learning as a social accomplishment: elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 91 (1), 798–817. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E.
(1955) On Face-Work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry: Journal of Interpersonal Relations, 18(3), 213–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1967) Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York, NY: Anchor Books. Reprinted by Penguin University Books in 1972.Google Scholar
Hall, J. K., & Pekarek Doehler, S.
(2011) L2 Interactional competence and development. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 Interactional Competence and Development (pp. 1–15). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Hymes, D.
(1972) Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 35–71). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G.
(2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kramsch, C.
(1986) From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 366–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D.
(2010) Having and doing: Learning from a complexity theory perspective. In P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh, & C. Jenks (Eds.), Reconceptualising learning in applied linguistics. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R.
(1998) Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 51–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mann, S., & Walsh, S.
(2013) RP or RIP: A critical perspective on reflective practice. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 289–315.Google Scholar
Markee, N.
(2008) Toward a learning behavior tracking methodology for CA-for-SLA. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 404–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, M. J.
(2003) Talking back: ‘small’ interactional response tokens in everyday conversation. Research on Language in Social Interaction, 36(1), 33–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) Fluency and confluence: What fluent speakers do. The Language Teacher, 29(6), 26–28.Google Scholar
Mori, J.
(2002) Task design, plan, and development of talk-in-interaction: An analysis of a small group activity in a Japanese language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 23(3), 323–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pallarés, O.
(2010) ‘Think and discuss’: Disseny de tasques per a la construcció de competències discursives a l’aula AICLE de matemàtiques. Un estudi de cas. Unpublished MA thesis, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Pallarés, O., & Petit, C.
(2009) The World of Math Through English. ESO Year 2. (Unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S.
(2010) Conceptual changes and methodological challenges: On language, learning and documenting learning in conversation analytic SLA research. In P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh, & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising learning in applied linguistics (pp. 105–126). Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H.
(1977) The preference for self-repair in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seedhouse, P.
(2004) The Interactional Architecture of the Second Language Classroom: A conversational analysis perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Walsh, S.
(2002) Construction or obstruction: teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom, Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 3–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) Developing interactional awareness in the second language classroom. Language Awareness, 12(2), 124–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Investigating classroom discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2011) Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Walsh, S
(2013) Classroom discourse and teacher development. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Walsh, S., & Li, L.
(2012) Conversations as space for learning. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 247–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woods, D., & Fassnacht, C.
(2007) Transana, rel. 2.20. Madison WI: Wisconsin Centre for Education Research.Google Scholar
Young, R. F.
(2011) Interactional competence in language learning, teaching, and testing. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol.2, pp. 426–443). London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 9 other publications

An, Jiangshan, Ernesto Macaro & Ann Childs
2019. Language focused episodes by monolingual teachers in English Medium Instruction science lessons. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 7:2 ► pp. 166 ff. DOI logo
An, Jiangshan, Ernesto Macaro & Ann Childs
2021. Language focused episodes by monolingual teachers in English Medium Instruction science lessons. In Teaching, Learning and Scaffolding in CLIL Science Classrooms [Benjamins Current Topics, 115], ► pp. 17 ff. DOI logo
Fürstenberg, Ulla, Tom Morton, Petra Kletzenbauer & Margit Reitbauer
2022. “I Wouldn’t Say There Is Anything Language Specific”: The Disconnect between Tertiary CLIL Teachers’ Understanding of the General Communicative and Pedagogical Functions of Language. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning 14:2 ► pp. 293 ff. DOI logo
Harumi, Seiko
2023. The facilitative use of learner-initiated translanguaging in Japanese EFL contexts. Applied Pragmatics 5:1 ► pp. 86 ff. DOI logo
Li, Dongying & Lian Zhang
2022. Exploring teacher scaffolding in a CLIL-framed EFL intensive reading class: A classroom discourse analysis approach. Language Teaching Research 26:3 ► pp. 333 ff. DOI logo
Lo, Yuen Yi, Angel M. Y. Lin & Yiqi Liu
2023. Exploring content and language co-construction in CLIL with semantic waves. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 26:3 ► pp. 289 ff. DOI logo
Ramírez-Verdugo, M. Dolores & Leyre López Castellano
2020. Classroom Interaction in Language Teacher Education. In Interdisciplinary Approaches Toward Enhancing Teacher Education [Advances in Higher Education and Professional Development, ], ► pp. 178 ff. DOI logo
Walsh, Steve & Olcay Sert
2019. Mediating L2 Learning Through Classroom Interaction. In Second Handbook of English Language Teaching [Springer International Handbooks of Education, ], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Walsh, Steve & Olcay Sert
2019. Mediating L2 Learning Through Classroom Interaction. In Second Handbook of English Language Teaching [Springer International Handbooks of Education, ], ► pp. 737 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 may 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.